Large Social Game Queue OLD THREAD

[Crazy]

By Crazy and PrivateI

We would like to announce

Survivor: Expect the Unexpected

. This will be an anonymous Survivor/Big Brother hybrid game for 22 players. Everyone will be divided into tribes and compete in immunity challenges, but each tribe will have its own Head of Household that will choose two of their tribemates to be nominated for eviction.

The game will be set to begin within a week after Names Are Hard concludes. If you would like to preliminarily apply for this game, you can click here. Applications will NOT be accepted on a first come, first serve basis, and we will not confirm whether you have been accepted or not until the game begins. If you would rather wait until the game enters sign-ups before applying, you may PM me or PrivateI, and we will notify you when it is time.

[Crazy]

In addition, each round, the nominee that survives eviction will become a new HoH... AND they will switch tribes.

GET HYPE.

[Crazy]

That's very possibly true. although after the first challenge, the HoHs will not be determined by a challenge. They will be decided based on who survives being on the block, so you might not have a choice in the matter.

To make things clearer, after every round, the nominee that survives eviction become a new HoH, and then will swap places with the HoH on the winning tribe. The game will be constantly changing so being able to adapt is going to be the most important thing.

[Crazy]

Sounds like a mutiny mechanic from another game

Pretty much! Except the mutiny is not voluntary, and the players will swap into a position of power, so everyone will be forced to immediately buddy up to the person that just joined their tribe.

[Crazy]

If there was enough interest to run two smaller games side-by-side, then couldn't the mods coordinate so that somebody didn't play in both games?

(Or, for funsies, ensure that each game had the exact same player list?)

[Crazy]

I don't think anybody can actually play well in two games at the same time. At best, they're playing well in one game, and neglecting the other. Maybe some people would disagree with me, though.

[Crazy]

Xofelf seems like the best and most obvious choice for the job. Considering that everyone already tells her everything

anyway

, it just makes sense to put her in the authority position, because otherwise she'll just be functioning as a middle-man to whomever actually has the title.

I think it would also help if everyone would collectively chill out about everything until things get settled. This queue is still in its infancy so of course there are going to be issues and disorganization.

[Crazy]

We also might be scaring away newbies that might actually want to play one of these games.

[Crazy]

Basically... if someone /ins to run something like half a year or more in advance, I think it's frankly kinda ridiculous that they wouldn't be able to run it at the time they claimed. I personally think that we should not have the "queue" necessarily for people to go "Oh I have a game I want to run eventually". Being placed in the queue should be reserved for people who have some actual completion done on their game, and it should be run similar to how the moderator queues are done for mafia -- the queuemaster should look at when the game will be coming up and PM the mod(s) to make sure it's ready to run. If it's not ready to run, it gets skipped and goes to the next person in the queue.

I think this makes sense. Would it be reasonable to separate the queue, where the actual queue includes only games that are ready or nearly ready, and beyond that have a list of games that are currently in progress, or may or may not actually run. Then mods can have multiple "ideas" out there but can only have one game on the "queue" at a time.

[Crazy]

I guess what I was thinking was there any way to make games less time intensive or more like a 1-2x a week commitment for non summer times then the two game a time might work otherwise keeping up with one game and RL can be intensely difficult.

I think it would be great to have a "lighter" game, but I sadly can't imagine how it could actually happen unless if the players are given restrictions on when or how often they can talk to each other. Otherwise, there are ways to design games that are easier to manage, smaller tribes and less time-consuming challenges, etc., but as I see it, the most social players are always going to get ahead, and talking to people every day is going to be a necessity unless if the players are physically restricted from being able to do that.

The only idea I have is a game that was set to run only 2 days a week, say a challenge on Friday evening, and Tribal Council lasting from Saturday evening until Sunday evening. Then, during the rest of the week, the forum goes completely dark. Such a game would take a long time to complete, though, and would have to run alongside other games.

[Crazy]

A non-anonymous game with lots of time-based posting challenges?

[Crazy]

I feel like HvV was a setup for the viewers, and not for the game itself. It might be fun, to see the initial reactions of "Oh, I'm a hero?" or "Woah, I'm a villain?" but beyond that I doubt the division would affect gameplay at all. Besides that, dividing the game into two large initial tribes seems like a risky design choice, for purposes of preventing Pagongings. For an MS game, I'd rather see a tribe division that was actually meaningful, like "Winners vs. Underdogs vs. Newbies" or something equally ridiculous.

[Crazy]

I like Fans vs. Favorites; it's a division that would actually affect gameplay, because different tribes come with different threat levels attached. People may argue it's unfair, but I feel it's more balanced than a typical Survivor game; newbies have a higher chance of surviving past the early-game, and strong players have a higher chance of getting voted off early. I think stretching out a FvF game to 3 tribes would be really interesting. The only thing I'd prefer is an all-newbie game, but I sadly don't think there's enough newbie interest to make that feasible.

Granted, I'd still love to play a Heroes vs. Villains game, but I'm not sure there's enough difference between playstyles to make it fit. The main differences seem to be in skill and experience, not in style.

[Crazy]

do winners versus people who made it to the finals and have never won

I think this might be too limited, although this is a good group of players!

I think nearly anyone that hasn't won a game before could possibly classify as an Underdog, to be honest. Without naming anyone or actually making a list, I bet if I tried to pick the Top 10 players on site, that 8-9 of them would be previous winners.

Or the tribe could just be called something else. "Winners vs. Losers vs. Newbies" has a certain ring to it.

[Crazy]

I have nothing officially yet, apart from some vague format ideas that are subject to change, but if anyone would be interested in co-modding a non-anonymous Winners vs. Newbies vs. Underdogs season, feel free to contact me!

[Crazy]

The challenge used in Seafoam (and Mass Effect, too, I think) was this site. Similar concept, though.

[Crazy]

Hey now, I wouldn't call it bad! Kronk's New Groove was pretty bad, though.